For all the people saying this is totally fine and they warned people and they shouldn't have to support every single fork that comes along, I'd like to pose a hypothetical.
All forks are basically equivalent. If I fork Bitcoin today, my fork is just as legitimate as Segwit or Bitcoin Cash. The only differentiation is community buy-in and hashing power and similar fuzzy metrics.
Rather than sticking with Segwit and ignoring BCC, what if Coinbase had ignored Segwit and stuck with BCC? People would have lost 75% of their holdings, as measured in USD. Would you consider that to be OK?
Or worse, imagine if Coinbase created their own fork and starting from some certain date they only supported that fork, and it ended up being worthless because nobody cared about it. Coinbase would have basically wiped out all of their users. Would that be OK?
All forks are basically equivalent. If I fork Bitcoin today, my fork is just as legitimate as Segwit or Bitcoin Cash. The only differentiation is community buy-in and hashing power and similar fuzzy metrics.
Rather than sticking with Segwit and ignoring BCC, what if Coinbase had ignored Segwit and stuck with BCC? People would have lost 75% of their holdings, as measured in USD. Would you consider that to be OK?
Or worse, imagine if Coinbase created their own fork and starting from some certain date they only supported that fork, and it ended up being worthless because nobody cared about it. Coinbase would have basically wiped out all of their users. Would that be OK?